America’s social welfare state: relief for the rich!

In her campaign for the senate in Mass., Elizabeth Warren continues to take on the big banks. Photo courtesy of 1000awesomewomen.tumblr.com.

Dan Froomkin’s recent post, “Social Welfare State, American-Style, Means Relief For The Rich,” has attracted more than 8,000 comments from its readers. A quick scan indicates that hundreds of those comments support Froomkin’s thesis.

Anyone who followed the budget debates in 2011 is already aware that both Democratic and Republican leaders, supported by our corporate-owned media, favored cuts in Social Security and Medicare to reduce the deficit.

But keep in mind that those going after the safety net for the poor and the elderly repeatedly used the euphemism “entitlement programs” to equate even self-funded Social Security with welfare.

It’s good news that Froomkin’s post is drawing multitudes of readers as he emphatically points out that the real entitlements in our country benefit primarily the wealthy. Hopefully, members of both parties will reflect on that fact:

WASHINGTON -- Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney has taken to accusing President Barack Obama of trying to turn the United States into a European-style social welfare state.

The hyperbole about Obama's actions aside, the United States already is a social welfare state -- almost right up there with the Europeans -- if you measure the total amount of drain on the Treasury caused by spending and subsidies on such things as health care and retirement. 

The one big difference is that in the American social welfare state, a lot of the benefits go to the rich. 

"We spend a tremendous amount on private social welfare through tax subsidies," said Christopher Faricy, a political science professor at Washington State University whose forthcoming book is about our divided welfare state.

"It just goes to a drastically different population than what we usually associate with welfare programs," Faricy said.

Read more:

Marketers succeed in commercializing both Thanksgiving and Christmas

Photo courtesy of http://fashionbombdaily.com

It was a matter of principle for me not to go shopping this weekend. I’ve been appalled in recent years by how retailers have turned a day once set aside for giving thanks into a launch pad for the Christmas shopping season. 

Hence, marketers have succeeded in commercializing both Thanksgiving and Christmas.   

Take a look at this report posted Sunday, Nov. 27, by Bloomberg:

Black Friday sales increased 6.6 percent to the largest amount ever as U.S. consumers shrugged off 9 percent unemployment and went shopping. 

Consumers spent $11.4 billion, ShopperTrak said in a statement yesterday. Foot traffic rose 5.1 percent on Black Friday, according to the Chicago-based research firm.

“This is the largest year-over-year gain in ShopperTrak’s National Retail Sales Estimate for Black Friday since the 8.3 percent increase we saw between 2007 and 2006,” ShopperTrak founder Bill Martin said in the statement. “Still, it’s just one day. It remains to be seen whether consumers will sustain this behavior through the holiday shopping season.” 

Read more:

The day before Thanksgiving: Feeling thankful the Super Committee failed

Super Committee members, photo courtesy of netrightdaily.com.

Van Jones, President of rebuildthedream.com and author of the NY Times bestseller, the Green-Collar Economy, offers several good reasons we might want to be thankful tomorrow on turkey day for the Super Committee’s failure:

The big buzz on cable news this week is that the Super Committee failed when it couldn't come to a compromise on how to cut the federal budget by $1.5 trillion.

But the truth is that the American people won.

And now, we must keep on winning.

We won when Democrats on the Super Committee held their ground on the expiring Bush tax cuts on the wealthy.

Instead of focusing like a laser on job creation, conservative Republicans in Congress held our nation's finances hostage in July. To appease the hostage-takers, Congress created a closed-door committee to force through major cuts this fall.

Thankfully, enough Democrats held together on the Super Committee to stop severe cuts from going through. Many proposed to seek revenue from small tax increases for the wealthy and a tiny "Wall Street Tax" on risky stock trades. But those cries from the 99% fell on the deaf ears of conservatives on the Super Committee.

Progressives don't often battle the concentrated forces of corporations and their armies of lobbyists to a stalemate. For that reason, we can stop, reflect on a job well done, and thank the congressmen and women who stopped the worst from getting through.

Read more:

“Washington still channels Reaganomics”

A Tea Party sign: image courtesy of IPWatchdog.com

Jeffrey D. Sachs, the director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University and the author, most recently, of “The Price of Civilization: Reawakening American Virtue and Prosperity,” suggests in his op-ed at the NY Times that the Occupiers might be the nucleus for a new progressive movement. 

And we do need a new one. 

I’m not sure I share Sachs’ optimism, but I’m inclined to trust the judgment of someone who gets the reality that “Both parties have joined in crippling the government in response to the demands of their wealthy campaign contributors …”

Sachs begins on this note:

 OCCUPY WALL STREET and its allied movements around the country are more than a walk in the park. They are most likely the start of a new era in America. Historians have noted that American politics moves in long swings. We are at the end of the 30-year Reagan era, a period that has culminated in soaring income for the top 1 percent and crushing unemployment or income stagnation for much of the rest. The overarching challenge of the coming years is to restore prosperity and power for the 99 percent.

Read more:

Fixing the economy: Bill Clinton’s new book, “Back to Work”

Photo courtesy of businessinsider.com

Bill Clinton’s new book, “Back to Work,”  can only add to the current upsurge of buyers’ remorse over the Democratic Party’s sellout in the 2008 primary to the hip, cool Barack Obama while simultaneously trashing both the most popular candidate Hillary Clinton and her husband Bill.  Bill, you recall, presided over an epoch of peace and prosperity during his administration.

Molly Driscoll at the Christian Science Monitor reports:

Former president Bill Clinton's new book "Back to Work," scheduled for November release, will outline his plan to get the US economy back on track.

Former president Bill Clinton created a publishing phenomenon when his 2004 memoir “My Life” sold more than 2.4 million copies in hardcover.

“I wrote this book because I love my country and I’m concerned about our future,” Mr. Clinton is reported to have said in a statement. “As I often said when I first ran for president in 1992, America at its core is an idea – the idea that no matter who you are or where you’re from, if you work hard and play by the rules, you’ll have the freedom and opportunity to pursue your own dreams and leave your kids a country where they can chase theirs.”

SYD first tipped me off to the publication of “Back to Work,” which is getting wide coverage this morning. Here’s a sample from a quick Google search:

·  

Bill Clinton 'Back to Work' With a New Book

New York Times (blog) - 3 days ago

In “Back to Work,” Mr. Clinton will make the case for why government matters, explaining his ideas on energy, job creation and financial responsibility, ...

256 related articles

Bill Clinton will publish 'Back to Work' in November‎ - Los Angeles Times (blog)

Bill Clinton's new book will tell us how to fix the US economy‎ - Christian Science Monitor

More news for back to work by bill clinton »

·  

Bill Clinton Book | Back To Work | Bill Clinton Economy | Mediaite

www.mediaite.com/.../bill-clinton-back-to-work-with-new-book-du... - Cached

3 days ago – Former President Bill Clinton is Back To Work with a new book due out in November, via Knopf. The 200-page book examines the current ...

·  

Bill Clinton 'Back to Work' With a New Book - NYTimes.com

artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/.../bill-clinton-back-to-work-with-a-new... - Cached

3 days ago – Former President Bill Clinton is offering up a plan to fix the economy and push the United States into the future in a new book to be published ...

·  

Bill Clinton will publish 'Back to Work' in November - latimes.com

latimesblogs.latimes.com/.../bill-clinton-will-publish-back-to-work-i... - Cached

3 days ago – Bill Clinton promises to look forward to the country's future in his upcoming book, Back to Work.

·  

Bill Clinton book on economy, 'Back to Work,' comes out in ...

www.washingtonpost.com/.../bill-clinton...back-to-work.../gIQAQAQOoK_...

6 days ago – NEW YORK — For Bill Clinton, it is again the economy, stupid.

·  

Bill Clinton pens new book 'Back to Work' about America's economic ...

shelf-life.ew.com/2011/09/22/bill-clinton-book-back-to-work/ - Cached

3 days ago – Former President Bill Clinton will detail a plan to get out of the current economic crisis and "lay a foundation for long-term prosperity" in a new ...

·  

It's Still the Economy, Stupid - The Daily Beast

www.thedailybeast.com/.../2011/.../it-s-still-the-economy-stupid.htm... - Cached

Jun 19, 2011 – Bill Clinton, Andrew Hetherington for Newsweek. 14 WAYS TO PUT AMERICA BACK TO WORK. Next week in Chicago, the Clinton Global ...

·  

Bill Clinton 'Back to Work' with New Book from Knopf | The New York ...

www.observer.com/.../bill-clinton-back-to-work-with-new-book-fro... - Cached

Bill Clinton is writing another book! Called Back to Work, it's going to tell everyone how to get America “back into the future business.” In a statement from Knopf, ...

The worst bet in all of politics

Gale  Russell Chaddock at the Christian Science Monitor offers a lucid analysis of where Congress is now with debt ceiling negotiations, and it’s not pretty.

Washington

 

After a night of high drama on Capitol Hill, a legislative solution to the debt crisis now shifts to the Senate, where leaders of both parties must now try to guess what will pass in the House – perhaps the worst bet in all of politics.

The situation is the result of strategic mistakes in the buildup to Friday's debt-ceiling votes, which produced an outcome exactly the opposite of what GOP leaders had hoped. Speaker John Boehner (R) of Ohio had hoped to win support from House Democrats this week by scaling back the House's earlier “cut, cap, and balance” bill. With Democratic support in the House, the bill would have had a credible shot in the Democrat-controlled Senate.

Instead, his proposal alienated not only House Democrats but also the president and GOP conservatives. After an aborted attempt to hold a vote Thursday, an amended bill did at last pass the House Friday, 218 to 210, but without a single Democratic vote and without 22 Republican defectors. Later Friday, it failed in the Senate, which voted to table Mr. Boehner's bill, 59 to 41, effectively derailing it.

Read more:

Jon Stewart compares America’s striking teachers to our bailed out CEOs on Wall Street who torpedoed the economy (watch video)

A friend who has taught high school English and theater in a small town in southeastern Minnesota for over 30 years – he taught my kids when they were in high school – posted this must-see video on Facebook this morning:

The Daily Show - Crisis in Dairyland - For Richer and Poorer - Teachers and Wall Street
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Obama’s SOTU and ranking the oratorical gifts of contemporary American presidents

Barack Obama's oratorical style imitates that of former civil rights leaders and evangelical pastors, including that of his former pastor Jeremiah Wright.

I listened to President Obama’s state of the union speech last night and concluded that he had basically taken the safe path in summarizing where the nation is and where he would like to see it move in the next two years. I thought it was a decent, though uninspiring speech.

I awoke this morning feeling no different about the state of the union than I felt the day before yesterday. How about you? This is an open thread.

On Facebook, however, Bill George, former CEO of Medtronic (a Minn. company) and currently a professor of business management at the Harvard Business School, posted on his way to Davos: “Just arrived in Switzerland. Pres Obama hit all the right notes in last night's State of Union, with "U.S. must compete" and an optimistic outlook for economy.”

George linked to this article in the Wall Street Journal that provides reasonably objective coverage of both Obama’s speech and the Republican response offered by Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan: Obama: U.S. Must Compete.

George is widely respected here in Minn. and having read True North, his book on leadership that emphasizes the importance of personal integrity, I tend to respect his judgment on economic issues. So I’ll defer to him in the matter of what Obama had to say in his second SOTU.

However, I’m still not persuaded of Obama’s oratorical gifts. In scanning today’s online news coverage in general, I paused at Aaron Couch’s article in the Christian Science Monitor that cites Richard Greene’s ranking of the top five presidential orators in his book, Words that Shook the World: 1. JFK, 2. FDR, 3. Obama, 4. Reagan, and 5. Clinton.

Unlike his impassioned followers in 08 and the fawning media, I’ve never been impressed by Obama’s oratory skills as I recognized early on that he was imitating the style of African-American civil rights leaders and evangelical preachers, including that of his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright.

Evidently, Greene thought it was to Obama’s credit that he sounded like MLK, Jr. Couch quotes Greene as saying that Obama comes closer than any other president to using the “rhythm, body language, pauses and punctuation and nuances in voice tone to ‘sing’ a speech,” like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Personally, I would prefer that our president speak in his own voice.

Did you live through the sixties?

Photo courtesy of iams.pbworks.com

 

I lived through the sixties, how about you?

I was married with two children born in 1960 and 1962. I held an infant on my lap while following televised developments in the Cuban missile crisis in 1962 during the Kennedy Administration. It was a crazy decade. I went back to school in the early 70s, completing junior college before transferring to Minnesota State University in Mankato, Minn. where students were still feeling the aftershock of the 60s. Marijuana was readily available on campus, and we continued to endure a few bomb scares.

Although the U.S. economy was doing pretty well back then, Robert Samuelson finds parallels between the 60s and the current era:

WASHINGTON -- We are, it's said, now living through the most wrenching period since the end of World War II. Unemployment has exceeded 9 percent for 20 months, and it's unclear when it will decisively decline. Americans' faith in the future has been shaken; a recent Gallup poll finds that only one in seven thinks it "very likely" that today's children will "have a better life than their parents." The feelings and facts are genuine, but the conclusion amounts to historical amnesia. At least one other period rivals the present for its disillusion and contentiousness -- the 1960s.

At first blush, the comparison seems absurd. The Sixties were nothing if not prosperous. The economy expanded for a then-record 106 months; by 1969, the unemployment rate was 3.5 percent. For job seekers, it was paradise. "I didn't look for a job, the job looked for me," recalls political scientist Alan Wolfe of Boston College, who received his Ph.D. in 1967. That applied to almost anyone wanting work. Now, graduating Ph.D.'s face "horrendous" prospects, notes Wolfe, as do most job seekers.

But a strictly economic focus misses broader political and psychological parallels. What frightens people today is that we've experienced setbacks that were so completely unpredicted and unimagined (financial panic, major bank failures, General Motors' bankruptcy, huge budget deficits, collapsed housing values) that they raise dark doubts about our institutions and leaders. The political order seems unequal to the challenges. The stridency of debate reflects fears that one political crowd or the other will yank the country in a disastrous direction.

Precisely the same sort of breakdown occurred in the Sixties, and although the causes were very different, the consequences as measured by public divisiveness and anxieties were as great or greater. "The country was more divided than at any time since 1861, just before the Civil War," says historian Allen Matusow of Rice University, author of the acclaimed Sixties' history "The Unraveling of America."

Read more:

The liberal media wants to know: who the heck is Barack Obama?

Without acknowledging that he and his sexist colleagues in the liberal media joined forces to take down Hillary Clinton and elevate the unvetted and inexperienced Barack Obama to the presidency, Bob Herbert demands to know this morning in the NY Times, “Who is Barack Obama?”

Herbert writes:

Americans are still looking for the answer, and if they don’t get it soon — or if they don’t like the answer — the president’s current political problems will look like a walk in the park.

Mr. Obama may be personally very appealing, but he has positioned himself all over the political map: the anti-Iraq war candidate who escalated the war in Afghanistan; the opponent of health insurance mandates who made a mandate to buy insurance the centerpiece of his plan; the president who stocked his administration with Wall Street insiders and went to the mat for the banks and big corporations, but who is now trying to present himself as a born-again populist.

Mr. Obama is in danger of being perceived as someone whose rhetoric, however skillful, cannot always be trusted. He is creating a credibility gap for himself, and if it widens much more he won’t be able to close it.

Mr. Obama’s campaign mantra was “change” and most of his supporters took that to mean that he would change the way business was done in Washington and that he would reverse the disastrous economic policies that favored mega-corporations and the very wealthy at the expense of the middle class and the poor.

After detailing the ways in which Mr. Obama has betrayed his most ardent supporters in his campaign for office, Herbert concludes:

Mr. Obama will deliver his State of the Union address Wednesday night. The word is that he will offer some small bore assistance to the middle class. But more important than the content of this speech will be whether the president really means what he says. Americans want to know what he stands for, where his line in the sand is, what he’ll really fight for, and where he wants to lead this nation.

They want to know who their president really is.

In the meantime, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton just keeps on being the Hillary we've always known her to be, working her heart out in support of the rights of all people wherever in the world she finds herself.

And guess what? She couldn't care less what the media thinks about her.

Gasp – What a Concept! Human Beings Should Preside Over the Market – Not the Other Way Around!

It’s Sunday morning, and I was drawn to an opinion piece in the Washington Post by Jim Wallis, a religious leader known for his emphasis on social justice for all people.

I especially appreciated these words in A Religious Response to the Financial Crisis:

…the Earth does not belong to the market. Human beings are stewards of God's creation and should preside over the market -- not the other way around. We must replace the market's false promise of limitless growth and consumption with an acknowledgment of human finitude, with a little more humility and with some moral limits. And the market's first commandment, "There is never enough," must be replaced by the dictums of God's economy -- namely, there is enough, if we share it.

Wallis concludes with some excellent advice:

Moving forward, I hope local congregations and national denominations alike will begin reflecting on where they keep their money and how their investments reflect their faith. I envision congregations creating checklists to evaluate who they do business with, and national church bodies considering where they should invest their pension funds.

When I recently told a few friends that my wife, Joy, and I had decided to close our little account at Bank of America and move our money to a local bank that has behaved more responsibly, I was amazed at the response. Religious leaders and pastors from around the country called to say that they, too, were ready to take their money out of the big banks that have shown such shameful morality and instead invest according to their values, by putting money into more local and community-based institutions.

So we've decided not just to remove our own money, but to invite other Christians, Jews and Muslims to do the same. Already we are hearing reports of whole congregations, groups of churches and faith-based organizations, from California to New York City, deciding to transfer their funds to local banks and credit unions.

The banks say they are "too big to fail." So let's make them smaller. We might finally get Wall Street's attention.

Explaining Obamascare, er, Obamacare to “Normal” Americans

It’s surprising enough that the same liberal pundits who in the 2008 primary accused Hillary Clinton of racism and wanting Obama dead increasingly seem to have their heads out of the clouds and their feet on the ground. It’s even more surprising that Bob Herbert at the NY Times in Friday’s column titled The Wild Card is actually requesting his president to show some respect and tell the truth about Obamascare - I mean Obamacare - to “normal” Americans. Herbert offers a little truth-telling himself:

But there’s a wild card out there undermining the chances for real reform, and it’s not the crazies who have been disrupting health care forums or the disrespectful space cadet legislators like the South Carolina Congressman Joe (“You lie!”) Wilson. It’s the ordinary working men and women of America who are struggling with the worst economic downturn they have ever seen and who are worried that the big new plans that the Democrats have in store may not be in their best interests — and may not be affordable.

Many of those folks already have health insurance, and many voted for Barack Obama. But they’re scared to death now as the economy continues to hemorrhage jobs and the budget deficits unfolding before their eyes are being counted in the trillions.

To get meaningful health care reform this time around, the Democrats will have to get that constituency on board. They haven’t yet.

For one thing, the various proposals are not at all clear to the general public and the average citizen is clueless as to how any of them would be paid for. To say that people are skeptical is the grossest understatement.

When the administration talks about getting hundreds of billions of dollars in savings from Medicare to help finance health care reform, it sends a shudder not just through Medicare recipients (who like their coverage just fine and don’t want anyone tampering with it), but also through younger individuals concerned about elderly relatives on Medicare.

The president said in his speech that the savings would come from eliminating “hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud” and the elimination of some unwarranted subsidies. But to the finely tuned ear of the general public, that’s exactly what politicians always say: We’re going to get rid of waste and fraud.

The administration would contend that this time will be different. One can understand why some will remain unconvinced.

The president also said, as he estimated the cost of his proposal at $900 billion over 10 years, that he “will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits — either now or in the future.”

I’m sure he means it. But I have not spoken to anyone, either on Capitol Hill or elsewhere, who believes that is doable. Now it may be that the public should not be so worried about the deficits. They had to be jacked up to get the country through this terrible economic crisis. And health care reform — real reform — is essential if long-term deficits are to be brought under control.

But people are worried about it. And just saying that health care reform will not add to the deficits is not enough to allay those fears.

What’s missing from all the talk about reform is how the runaway costs of health care, and all the dire consequences associated with them, can be reined in without a strong public insurance option and other big-time cost-saving initiatives.

If the government requires everyone — or nearly everyone — to have health insurance, the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical industry will reap a bonanza. What the Democrats still have to make clear to ordinary working men and women is how this latest incarnation of health care reform will be cost effective and broadly beneficial to them and to their government.

Neophyte Obama at the Helm in a Deepening Recession

When the Democratic Party selected neophyte Barack Obama as its nominee over the seasoned and experienced Hillary Clinton in 2008, no one anticipated the global financial meltdown that left Americans in a recession with soaring unemployment. Early on, President Obama surrounded himself with a squadron of financial advisors, including Larry Summers and Timothy Geithner. Having no background in economics, Obama made his decisions based on the advice of said advisors while ignoring warnings from folks like the Nobel-prize winning economist, Paul Krugman. Krugman has graciously refrained from saying “I told you so,” but he has urged the increasingly defensive president to take action soon. In a recent column, Krugman wrote:

Now, it’s bad enough to be jobless for a few weeks; it’s much worse being unemployed for months or years. Yet that’s exactly what will happen to millions of Americans if the average forecast is right — which means that many of the unemployed will lose their savings, their homes and more.

To head off this outcome — and remember, this isn’t what economic Cassandras are saying; it’s the forecasting consensus — we’d need to get another round of fiscal stimulus under way very soon. But neither Congress nor, alas, the Obama administration is showing any inclination to act. Now that the free fall is over, all sense of urgency seems to have vanished.

A follow-up editorial in the NY Times begins:

Unemployment is rising. Foreclosures are surging. Lending is still constrained. So why exactly is the Obama administration waiting to act?

The editorial discusses three main areas in which the Obama Administration should at least lay the groundwork at the present time despite its current preoccupation with health care reform: stimulus spending, foreclosure relief, and bank rescue.

The editorial concludes:

If wait-and-see is anything other than a near-term tactic, it’s bound to be a miscalculation. The need for expanded relief and recovery efforts is compelling. Rather than avoid those fights, the Obama team must win them.

Times reader Dwight Bobson of Washington, DC pointed out:

Most all that Obama and the Dems have done is play it too safe. They had a super majority and knew what must be done. They acted by hiring the insiders and rewarded the criminals in the financial community again benefitting from self-induced bonuses. When it came time for the working class to receive some help, they got $250 to spend wildly on basic food and clothes for their kids. The more things change the more they remain the same.

A Political/Spiritual Epiphany in the Dentist’s Office

Photo credits: bevshoenberger.com

Due to a busy schedule I’ve not posted much lately. I was guest speaker on Sunday at a local Twin Cities Unitarian Universalist church, and I was occupied Monday organizing my mindfulness meditation group. I just got back this afternoon from my six-month check up at the dentist’s office, and I’m going out later this evening to help with fundraising at the seminary where I earned my master’s in divinity degree.

No doubt you’ve already glimpsed the thread of spirituality running through the above list of activities. No? I’ll bet you don’t get the spiritual connection with the dentist’s office.

Let me explain. I’ve been seeing the same dentist at least twice a year for about the past eight years. Dr. Fuller and I never fail to get into an intense political discussion while he’s completing my check up. He’s fair, though. He removes the gadgets and allows me to speak when it’s my turn.

A lot had happened since my visit last July, but we zeroed in on the economy and quickly moved to discussing Naomi Klein’s “The Shock Doctrine.” Dr. Fuller was putting his tools away, when I mentioned we’d managed to thoroughly depress ourselves this time around. That’s when I told him I was starting a mindfulness meditation group in my neighborhood. Startled, he replied, “That’s the only way out of this. A lot of people have told me they’re doing the same thing.”

Could the global financial meltdown be moving us toward a deeper appreciation of the spiritual? Just a thought.

On the Economy: “Hopefully things will turn around despite the financial experts and politicians”

Note: In the interest of confidentiality, I’ve changed the names of an acquaintance and a friend who are quoted in the following post.

With all the spin emanating from the Axelrod PR machine on the Obama stimulus plan and the counter spin from congressional leaders, you’d think the American people were lying supine in their beds awaiting rescue by our national heroes, um, I mean leaders.

Encounters in my daily life this week with a couple of representatives of the fabled middle class tell a different story.

As I was carrying my groceries in the other day, I stopped to chat with Mike, a member of the maintenance team at my apartment building. Mike is always on the run, and it’s a rare occasion when he’ll pause to answer a question with more than a brief yes or no. Today, he looked up only once or twice from his work to commiserate with me on the high cost of food: I’d just paid $84.00 for a couple of bags of groceries.

“Remember the excuse when supermarket prices started to go up?” I asked. They blamed it all on the price of gas. Last time I checked, gas was selling for $1.49 a gallon.”

“Yeah,” Mike said, “But once they raise the price of groceries, they never go down again.”

A family man in his mid-forties, Mike explained how he and his wife are meeting the challenge. He said, “We go grocery shopping about every three months for whatever we can buy in bulk. We make trips in between for milk and stuff like that. That way we save quite a bit of money.”

He went on to say he and a friend were each going to buy half a cow to put meat in the freezer for the coming months. He said they might also buy a hog.

“That’s what ya gotta do to survive these days,” he said.

I’ve no doubt that Mike and his wife and kids will survive the recession, depression, or whatever you want to call it.

In another heartening exchange, I got an email from my friend Fred, who is about the same age as Mike. Fred is also married but he and Joanne have no children.

Fred wrote:

“This year I think will be a challenge. We've been taking stock of all

of our assets & debt and trying to work up a survival plan. It's a lot of work but necessary, we should be able to weather the downturn ok though. Hopefully things will turn around despite the financial experts and politicians.”

Well said: “Hopefully things will turn around despite the financial experts and politicians.”

Although Fred and Joanne have not been threatened by foreclosure on their mortgage, Fred is taking a leadership role in their neighborhood to assist others less fortunate. He writes:

“Tomorrow I have a meeting with a Community Organizer. I've been tossing around an idea about how to deal with some of the foreclosed properties in our neighborhood. Eventually our next-door neighbor suggested I contact an individual that they have worked with. I emailed her and she was very interested in my ideas. They have a program that recruits and promotes neighborhood leaders that might be an option but she wanted to talk in person before heading down that road. So we'll see tomorrow where it goes. They’d have to have some pretty hefty resources if my plan is to work but it could be a good thing for everyone if it works.”

In light of the above, let me be the first to admit that community organizers have their place.

There’s no question that we desperately need a stimulus plan for the sake of all those who are already unemployed or who have lost their homes during this downturn. Hopefully, it will stop the hemorrhaging of jobs, create new jobs, and rebuild the infrastructure as promised.

In the meantime, I’m sure there are many Americans like Mike and Fred who are using common sense and wisdom to weather the crisis - despite the financial experts and politicians.